Will we allow deputies to post game play instructions?

[donsig]

Will we allow deputies to post game play instructions or will deputies have to be officially and formally moved into the leader office in order to post game play instructions?

This goes to the heart of having deputies. Should we allow deputies to step in and post game play instructions if a leader does not do so? Whenever a leader does not post gameplay instructions (for whatever reason) can the deputy step up to the plate? Do we want to have deputies so that we have a better chance of having instructions posted for every session or do we want deputies so we have someone to promote when a leader resigns, disappears or otherwise leaves office?

Discussing this issue now will help us to write a better constitution and Code of Laws.

 

[zorven]

I think deputies should be able to post game play instructions:

1) if the deputy was elected

AND

2) if the Leader requested the deputy to fill in for the Leader

OR

3) if the Leader has not posted instructions or the intent to post instructions within 24 hours (or other number) prior to the beginning of a game play session.

 

[FortyJ]

That just looks like a whole lot of words when a simple "Yes" would have sufficed.

 

[Charon]

I think a deputy should only be allowed to post game play intructions if he was given authorization to do this, by the leader or by the people. Either the senate or the judicial branch (I admit I'm not entirely sure under who's authority this should be) can decide to post a poll, in a case where the leader has not submited too many times, and that poll could grant the authorization for the deputy to fill in, though not make him an actual acting leader.

I'm realize my ideas aren't as fleshed as the ones of the veterans here, but after all I'm not a veteran- I'm just starting to get the hang of it.

 

[FortyJ]

Charon

Simply by participating, you've taken the first step to becoming a vet of the demogame wars. Congratulations.

That is certainly a valid suggestion, and one that is worthy of consideration. Essentially, this comes down to three options (with a number of variations of each, I'm sure):

1. Deputies cannot post official instructions or conduct official polls unless the Leader has resigned or been removed from office (ie. due to absenteeism, a result of a PI, etc.).
2. Deputies can post official instructions and conduct official polls if the Leader has officially notified the nation (presumably via post in the official departmental thread) that he/she will be unable to post for a brief time (ie. vacation, etc.).
3. Leaders and Deputies can post official instructions and conduct polls at any time during the term. With respect to instructions, a leader's instructions would override a deputy's instructions if both posted in the thread for the same turn chat.

Personally, they all have merit, but I'm partial to the 3rd as it allows for minimal interruption of game play since either individual can provide the necessary instructions in time for the chat.

 

[ravensfire]

Gee, let's not even bother to think about why a deputy to do something, just ask if they can do it.

Very information donsig.

To answer the question, yes, they should be able to.

Perhaps we should start a full-fledged vacant office discussion.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Gee, let's not even bother to think about why a deputy to do something, just ask if they can do it.

Very information donsig.

To answer the question, yes, they should be able to.

Perhaps we should start a full-fledged vacant office discussion.

-- Ravensfire

I don't understand your first sentence ravensfire. Are there typos in it?

We could start a full fledged vacancy discussion but I think we may be able to make some headway on that here. FortyJ has started the ball rolling by beginning to define the cases when a deputy can step in. I would hasten to point out that we should always keep in mind in this discussion the need for deputies. Why do we need them? As FortyJ's post shows there are two functions deputies can fulfill:

1) They can step in and take over when a leader leaves office permanently; and

2) They can step in and take over when the leader leaves office temporarily.

In the first case we have always promoted the deputy to leader so the deputy is not posting game play instructions for he (or she) is now leader.

So it is really case number two that we have to deal with. When a leader *leaves* office temporarily (announced or unannounced)he is still leader and the deputy is still deputy. In this case will we ever allow the deputy to step in and post game play instructions? It is not so important here (while we are writing the constitution) to hammer out all the details ofwhen a deputy could post instructions it is more important to know if we'd rather have the deputy taking up the leader's slack or should we leave that to the DP?

 

[TerminalMan90]

Originally posted by Charon
I'm realize my ideas aren't as fleshed as the ones of the veterans here, but after all I'm not a veteran- I'm just starting to get the hang of it.

I think we "ordinary citizens" shouldn't hold our breath waiting for responses from the veteran players. They are so busy squabbling that they can't see that other interested players have opinions.

No wonder people come, have a look around, and head for the hills!

No, you have to have 4700+ posts and nitpick everything to pieces before notice you at all.

I am not sure I will stick around for the start of DG4 after all.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

TMan, please stick around, and be assured that things will get better. The debates over law are the most combative part of this game, and we are all stating what we believe. Heck, people have steamrolled over my posts to continue a heated debate.

So, please reconsider, TMan. I need your mayoral skills at the very least.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

3. Leaders and Deputies can post official instructions and conduct polls at any time during the term. With respect to instructions, a leader's instructions would override a deputy's instructions if both posted in the thread for the same turn chat.


Personally, they all have merit, but I'm partial to the 3rd as it allows for minimal interruption of game play since either individual can provide the necessary instructions in time for the chat.

I like #3 as well, although I may add that while deputies can post a poll at any time, they cannot post instructions until 24 hours before the chat. This would only be to prevent confusion.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by TerminalMan90
I think we "ordinary citizens" shouldn't hold our breath waiting for responses from the veteran players. They are so busy squabbling that they can't see that other interested players have opinions.

No wonder people come, have a look around, and head for the hills!

No, you have to have 4700+ posts and nitpick everything to pieces before notice you at all.

I am not sure I will stick around for the start of DG4 after all.

I do hope you choose to participate in the game. I enjoyed having you in the last one.

I am curious about your post. It seems that you feel ignored in these constitutional debates, yet you have only made one post in any of them (the one in this thread being your second). It is not uncommen to have one post appear to be ignored in a thread, happens to me more than I care for. However, your voice is not worth less than any other and only involvement in the process will show you that you can be a contributing member of the process.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by TerminalMan90

I think we "ordinary citizens" shouldn't hold our breath waiting for responses from the veteran players. They are so busy squabbling that they can't see that other interested players have opinions.

No wonder people come, have a look around, and head for the hills!

No, you have to have 4700+ posts and nitpick everything to pieces before notice you at all.

I for one saw Charon's post. FortyJ saw it and responded to it. Ravensfire posted then I posted and replied to Ravensfire and also picked up the thread of the discussion where Charon and FortyJ left off. What do you want TMan? Do you want everyone to acknowledge everyone's posts like I'm doing here? Who wants to read that crap?

In the future if you want to refer to me try typing in donsig.

Now do you have an opinion on whether deputies can post game play instructions?

@DZ: Thanks for participating in this discussion.

[nitpick]May I point out that a certain constitutional article about to be ratified uses the term *leader*. Are we to consider *deputies* to be *leaders* if they can post game play instructions? This is important when it comes to which offices can be held simultaneously and which offices can be appointed, etc. If we decide to rid our beloved constitution of generic terms like *leader* and *office* in favor of the empowered to post game play instructions guideline then we need to decide this question now before we finish writing said constitution.[/nitpick]

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by FortyJ
3. Leaders and Deputies can post official instructions and conduct polls at any time during the term. With respect to instructions, a leader's instructions would override a deputy's instructions if both posted in the thread for the same turn chat.

I also like #3. Deputies can post polls. They can post the instructions within 24 hours of the turnchat (Unless the Leader of the department specifies to post for him/her due because the leader may be busy with RL or cant gain access to the forums but can have access to a Chat Client (IRC, MSN, AOL, ICQ, etc.)

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig

[nitpick]May I point out that a certain constitutional article about to be ratified uses the term *leader*. Are we to consider *deputies* to be *leaders* if they can post game play instructions? This is important when it comes to which offices can be held simultaneously and which offices can be appointed, etc. If we decide to rid our beloved constitution of generic terms like *leader* and *office* in favor of the empowered to post game play instructions guideline then we need to decide this question now before we finish writing said constitution.[/nitpick]

[nitpick]
Am I correct in assuming that, in allowing deputies to post game play instructions, and in your stated preference for the "empowered to post game play instructions" guideline you recently proposed, that you are planning on limiting citizens to hold 1 office, or being the deputy for one office?
[/nitpick]

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

[nitpick]
Am I correct in assuming that, in allowing deputies to post game play instructions, and in your stated preference for the "empowered to post game play instructions" guideline you recently proposed, that you are planning on limiting citizens to hold 1 office, or being the deputy for one office?
[/nitpick]

-- Ravensfire

I am advocating that a citizen be allowed to hold only one office that can post game play instructions. I think that under certain circumstances deputies and judiciary members should be empowered to post game play instructions. So, yes, I am advocating that a citizen be able to hold only one office - be it leader / judiciary member/ governor / deputy. Note that I do not include mayors here. While we may let mayors set city build queues the ultimate posting of the instruction would rest with the governor (in my plan). So a leader / judiciary member/ governor / deputy could also be a mayor and / or hold any other non-instruction posting office (such as census officer, election officer, etc.). But a citizen could not be a leader and a deputy or hold multiple deputyships.

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

That's what I was assuming - thanks for the clarification. It's also what I was hoping you meant.

For the record, I agree with you that, under defined circumstances, a deputy should be allowed to post instructions for their office. Of all the proposals I have seen, allowing a deputy to post a set amount of time (24-28 hours) before a game play session if the primary official has not posted instructions already makes the most sense.

As a former President (and thus DP), I would shy away from the proposal that allows a deputy to post instructions at any time, and are automatically overridden if the primary leader posts instructions. Far too much chaos. As a potential primary official, I certainly don't want my deputy posting instruction that may be different that what I want.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Speaking as a former deputy from various departments, There were cases that I had to post the instructions at the last minute if the Leader fails to post his/her instructions. Sometimes a deputy would only get last minute notice when a Leader does not show up and the Deputy has to quickly organize and post the Department's instructions. That can lead to a sloppy instruction post that could confuse the DP.

I believe it is a good to have the last 24 hours before the turn chat as the green hours for the deputy to post the instructions. This will give time to the deputy to plan and organize the instructions making them clear and easy to understand.

This should also affect Deputy Governors (If they are still there). Since IMO, Governors are also considered leaders. I believe that Deputy Governors should also have this 24-28 hour privilege. This is critical since Governors are in charge of build queues. Without the Governor’s instruction thread, then the province will not have its build queues done. Like with the Department Deputies, deputy Governors should also post there instructions. Having a build queue plan from the Governor makes the Deputy Governor's job easier.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, here's a slightly long-winded yes.

In the interest of moving the game forward with maximum participation by a variety of individuals, it is prefereable to allow the deputy to post instructions over having the DP fill in for leaders who don't post. In short, #3, and the 24 hour thing sounds good to me.

 

[TerminalMan90]

Originally posted by donsig In the future if you want to refer to me try typing in donsig.

Sorry about that donsig, I was feeling ticked at the time. On the other hand, I was making a point about people with low post counts being ignored. I have had my say and I will let it go now.

Now do you have an opinion on whether deputies can post game play instructions?

Ok, here goes.
1) the leader posts his instructions for the turn chat with 24+ hours lead time
or
2) the leader realizes that he won't be able/available to put together an instruction post and posts a pubicly a message to his deputy requesting he take over. (preferred method)
or
3) the lazy leader (oh no!) neglects his duties and skips 1 & 2. His diligent deputy notices that it is less than 24 hours to the turn chat and quickly puts together his instructions in the leader's stead.
or
4) the lazy deputy (worser and worser) does not realize the leader has gone AWOL and also does not post instructions. The responsiblity passes up the chain of command and the DP(?) makes decisions on the behalf of the leader in quesion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the will of the people put the leader in office and the deputy is appointed from one of the other (unsuccessful) candidates, that puts a non-elected official in charge of the office when the leader is absent. It would be much better if the leader appointed his second choice man for deputy (especially if the leader is absent for a short period)

Yah, another long winded yes

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by TerminalMan90

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the will of the people put the leader in office and the deputy is appointed from one of the other (unsuccessful) candidates, that puts a non-elected official in charge of the office when the leader is absent. It would be much better if the leader appointed his second choice man for deputy (especially if the leader is absent for a short period)

No need to correct you. I have disliked the runner-up in the election being deputy every since term two of DG1. (Anyone remember why?) Anyway, We do not have to rectify this by having the leader appoint a deputy after an election. We can simply set things up so that candidates pick their deputy (running mate) before the election just like we do in the US when we elect a president.